Reply With QuoteI think something to make it easier to distinguish between the two hands when reading from the glow of the lume is a good idea.Originally Posted by monogroover
I had the SW210 in my Christopher Ward and it is an excellent movement. Great pick Eddie.
Eddie
- - - Updated - - -
I had the SW210 in my Christopher Ward and it is an excellent movement. Great pick Eddie.
Eddie
I think something to make it easier to distinguish between the two hands when reading from the glow of the lume is a good idea.
Looks good to me. I shall follow this with interest.
Black dial. No fauxtina. L2L<47. Longer lumed plot, less taper on minute hand. Please.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Hallelujah no Miyota
(whirr whirr whirr)
Big tick in the box for the Sellita movement
Yeah, IWC f'd up the matching of the hands. Maybe THEY can somehow get away with it, but to duplicate their error on an homage to an obscure timepiece may not be the path to superior sales.
Eddie
BTW, Eddie, it would appear you have outwitted the Grim Reaper and are on your way to recovery.
I wish you a full and speedy return to "normal."
What you say couldn't be further from the truth. The truncated hour hand was made so it couldn't at any circumstances get confused with the minute hand... as was the previous case of the double syringe hands.
For myself, I prefer the previous double syringe hands as on the JLCs, but that is another story.
Well I've just bought an original Mk XI to make sure it's done right.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
The shape of the bezel of the IWC is quite different to the Smiths military. It has an additional angle and that makes it look more square.
Lug width, please consider to make it 20mm. We had that discusson with the second reissue of the Smith Military, and there, for more consistency with the original and the first reissue, for many it seemed a good idea to stay with 18mm lug width.
But 20mm looks so much better, and will make the watch more versatile, imho. 18mm is just too slim. I have a Speedmaster reduced with 18mm lug width, looks great on steel, but not so much on leather, nato, or perlon. I owned a Stowa Partitio, and sold it because the 18mm lug width was just too "girlish" looking. For me, the classic winning proportion is to be found on the Explorer 1016: 36mm case, 20mm lug width.
Tomas
Last edited by TomasC; Yesterday at 14:38.
I'm in for this one. It's been so long i don't post here that i had to register again since i don't even have same email nor i remember my user name but this watch made me want to rejoin TF family, my last Eddie's watch was the PRS29B, this will be next.
I completely disagree. For me 36/18 is perfect and 36/20 is disproportionate. If lug width is more than half the width of the watch it throws the proportions. Just like a 40mm watch with 22mm lugs - all wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Same for me, although there are few exceptions. Like the Smiths Everest - 36/20 and it does work very well. Or my CW C65 Trident Mk II - 38/20 and it looks fine.
Well, I'd find it hard to argue with any of that myself, particularly the last bit :-)
This is supposed to be a homage to one of the most iconic military watches ever made, the IWC MK11. Personally I want it to be as close as possible to the original (which is out of reach for me financially) and that means 18mm lug width. If it would have 20mm lug width, it would look more like a homage to a Rolex than to the MK11.
Consider me jealous. In my opinion it's the most beautiful military watch ever made. Any chance of some pics?
It would be fantastic if you can duplicate the cup-shape of the dial in the homage.
EddieYeah, IWC f'd up the matching of the hands. Maybe THEY can somehow get away with it, but to duplicate their error on an homage to an obscure timepiece may not be the path to superior sales.PC,
I've always been under the impression that the military aviation purposed "Type 48" dial/hand pattern used for most of the Mk XIs was these "obscure"(?/!/?) timepieces' most distinctive aesthetic feature. However, as Abraxas has already mentioned above, JLC early on made up some Mk XIs with various dial and hand sets [which can be seen at the same http://www.markeleven.com/ website DannyPN put up earlier in this thread] that were more congruent with the style of the WWII issue WWWs that preceded the post-war MkXIs and I always thought those rarer versions of the Mk XI looked nice in their own right despite my own particular preference for the "f'ed up"(??/!!/??) Type 48 style dial and hands
You may still be a bit out of sorts physically, Eddie, but your mind is obviously still clicking on all cylinders regardless. I hope you take a close look inside your just acquired original Mk XI and duplicate the ultra high spec internal case technology of these peerless pilot watch icons in the same manner you did for your beautifully done through and through first series PRS-29A recreation of the original late 1960s Smiths GS ref.4701 W10s.
I think that a "real" Mk XI from TF would be truly special in the highest horological sense and sought out by anybody who fully understood what it was even underneath the signature aesthetics for the same reasons military and commercial pilots and aircrew sought out the original IWC Mk XI and kept it in production basically unchanged for 36 years straight from 1948 to 1984
The original Everest confounds that statement. IMHO. There's more to it than mere numbers.
There's only one way to get it right.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
!!! Just made me realise that 36/18 and 40/20 is 2:1! Don’t know why that’s such a revelation, but it feels like it
37/19 ftw
Posting Permissions
